• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Complexity vs. Depth -- A Look Inside Pathfinder 2nd Edition

One of the biggest tabletop RPG releases of the decade, Pathfinder 2nd Edition launches today at Gen Con. Many of us have playtested it, others have watched streams and podcasts, but this is the big day. Here are my thoughts on the new iteration of this classic game. I'm assuming here that you're basically familiar with either Pathfinder 1E or D&D 5E.

pf_cover.jpg



Background
Before I start this look at the Pathfinder 2nd Edition core rulebook, let me explain my background so that you can contextualize it. I was a big fan of D&D 3E and 3.5 back in the early 2000s and ran two multi-year campaigns with that ruleset (one being Age of Worms from Paizo). When the D&D 4E/Pathfinder edition war happened, I ran one long 4E campaign (our own War of the Burning Sky adventure path). After that, I played through the Kingmaker AP for Pathfinder as a player, ran a couple of D&D 5E storylines (loved Strahd!), and I've run about half the Pathfinder 2E playtest but having received my pre-ordered copy of the materials after they were on store shelves, struggled to keep up with the pace and eventually bowed out.

Going in to this: I was a fan of the 3.x ruleset, but felt a little left behind after a while with PF1 in terms of system mastery, rules boat, and setting lore. I didn't get on super-well with the playtest, so I was slightly wary as I opened this book. On the other hand, I do enjoy a bit of crunch in my games. A new jumping on point, you say? Let's take a look!

Overview
There are two important concepts to keep in mind when looking at this game: the difference between complexity and depth. I'd like to quickly define them as I use them, just in case your definitions are different. To me, complexity arises from multiple subsystems or different rules, or complicated rules. Depth, on the other hand, resides in the options and available customization. These two things can exist independently, and for me a game works best when it has low complexity but high depth.

The short version of this review: I think Paizo have pulled that off. Compared to PF1, they have reduced complexity. Compared to, say, D&D 5E, they have more depth. I would say that this game is about as complex as D&D 5E, but with more depth. The rules are more standardized than they used to be, but you have important choices at all stages of character development. If you don't want read this big wall of text of a review -- I like it, and it scratches an itch for me. I'm pretty sure I'll run it soon.

I find it amusing that Pathfinder 2nd Edition has the exact same page count as D&D 5th Edition. I don't know if that's a coincidence, some artifact of printing scales, or an inside joke at Paizo, but the Pathfinder 2E core rulebook is 640 pages, while the equivalent content, D&D's PHB plus DMG, is 639 pages. Basically, if you take the PHB and the DMG and smoosh them into one hardcover, it's the exact same size as the Pathfinder 2E core rulebook. Like, uncannily so.

Sticking with format, the edge of every right-hand page has a useful 'bar' which shows you where in the book you are. It's a big book, and this really helps with navigation (though I feel maybe adding each section's page number would help? Or maybe that would look too cluttered. Not sure!)

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.06.39.png

The game now formally codifies some things which were not explicit in the original: the mechanics are divided into three "modes", namely encounter (rounds), exploration (freeform), and downtime (daily). And Golarion is officially the core, default setting and baked into the core rulebook, although under the pen-name of Age of Lost Omens. I don't know much about Golarion or the Forgotten Realms myself (I know FR has a Drizzt in it), and I'm not really a settings guy, but all of Paizo's adventure paths take place in that setting, so the chapter is useful.

Characters
So, let's look at the rules, starting with character creation. A character is built out of feats, which are chosen from lists granted by ancestry (what was once 'race'), background, and class.

At each stage you get a choice of from two to about six feats -- for example, if you choose the dwarf ancestry, you choose one of six feats at first level, then one at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th. The effect of this is that any two dwarves are not the same; ignoring the heritages (basically 'sub-races') which grant minor tweaks like fire or poison resistance, a dwarf is going to choose between the familiar stonecunning, or something like dwarven ore, rock runner, unburdened iron, and so on. And this is what I mean by depth v. complexity: it's easy (you are just choosing one of six feats) but it's deeper (you have more customization to your race); plus you become more like your race as you go up in levels and get more of those race feats. Your ancestry keeps being important. You become more and more dwarfy.


Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.08.17.png



The races are the standard list you'd expect; plus a goblin. Each race has a handful of heritages (sub-races), and half-orc and half-elf are now human heritages.

Moving on to classes, again we're looking at a fairly typical list. The Paladin is now a "Champion", and each class has some sample builds such as the Rogue Scoundrel, or the Ranger Archer. Like with race, you have a free choice of class feats from a list presented in that class -- the Alchemist, for example, has a choice of three at 1st level, three at 2nd level, and again at 4th, 6th, etc. This means that your Alchemist will differ from your friend's Alchemist. Low complexity (you're just choosing from a short list of feats again) but high depth (two characters of the same class can be customized by a choice of three options every other level).

There are other bits -- archetypes (used to pseudo-multiclass) and backgrounds (each gives ability adjustments, skills, and a feat) which customize your character a little more.

Feats & Skills
As with previous editions of both Pathfinder and D&D, this game features the expected skill list. It's familiar ground; each iteration of the d20 engine has a similar list, with some tweaking. In this case we have a list of 17. PF1 and D&D 3.x had skill ranks which went from 0 upwards (a bard character in my Age of Worms D&D 3E campaign was rolling something like +40 on Use Magic Device by the end of the campaign). D&D 5E simplified that to a binary skill proficiency - you're proficient, or you're not. Pathfinder 2E takes a middle ground - there are five skill levels called untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary. Some skill uses require a certain skill level, and can give access to certain skill feats (there's feats again!)

I keep talking about feats. There's a reason for that. Feats are the core of the game's depth: everything is a feat. Race feats, class feats, archetype feats, skill feats, general feats. You can very much customize your character with your choice of feats. At each level you'll be choosing one or more feats. These are literally on the character sheet, so you can see them, and simply fill in the box. That character sheet isn't pretty, but its very functional. You can see them below -- the character sheet tells you what fets you are choosing at any given level and - more importantly - while the game has a lot of feats in it, at any given time you're choosing from a short list. At 5th level, you get an ancestry feat, but you're only choosing from a small handful for your race at that level.


Screenshot 2019-07-30 at 23.22.09.png



It's easy to think that a game with a thousand feats is too complex. It's not. You never have to choose from a thousand feats; you're always choosing from a short list for that level of ancestry, class, skill, or what-have-you. Low complexity. High depth.

Equipment
Like all games of its ilk, PF2 has an equipment chapter. Pathfinder delves into equipment in more detail than its main competitor, but it's not onerous -- about 25 pages of the book. It's mainly familiar ground, with some structural differences -- equipment has a level which defines how hard it is to make, and encumbrance is measured in an abstract value called 'bulk' which takes into account size and weight. Then we have the usual lists of armor, shields, weapons, and gear, including alchemical stuff, animals, services, and so on. When I ran the playtest last year, I struggled with the sheer volume of keywords in the game - especially when they sounded similar, like a weapon that was deadly or fatal (aren't they all?), finesse or agile, and this hasn't changed; it's something which will come naturally with familiarity, I'm sure. Overall, though, this chapter is pretty much what you'd expect.

Magic
So, spells. Magic is a BIG part D&D and Pathfinder, and this book is no exception. You know when you buy a D&D descendant what you're getting into: a big 120-page chapter full of spells. Many you'll be familiar with -- your magic missiles and fireballs and walls of stone and so on. We have lists of spells for four magical traditions -- arcane and divine, plus primal and occult. These four big lists tell you which classes get access to them (wizards cast arcane spells, bards cast occult spells, druids cast primal spells, and so on), and each of the many, many spells listed in the book is tagged with one or more of those four lists.

The schools of magic are familiar, and Vancian magic is still king. Vancian magic has been D&D's core 'fire and forget' spell slot system since the 1970s, based on the books of Jack Vance. So what's changed?

For a start, we now have 10 spell levels (plus cantrips) rather than the traditional 9. All four lists go up to 10, and that top level contains the heavy hitters like wish, gate, time stop, and cataclysm. Generally speaking, you'll only ever have one 10th level spell slot, although there is a way to get a second. You can 'heighten' spells by putting them in a higher level spell slot, and each spell has a little list of what benefits that gives you - usually it's a numerical or damage increase, but other times it's an upgrade in functionality - a 1st level detect alignment, for example, indicates the presence of but not location or strength of aligned auras. If you heighten it to 2nd level, however, you get each aura's location and strength, too.

Most spells take between 1-3 actions to cast (more on the 'three-action economy' later), and this is depicted by a nifty little icon in the spell description. 2 actions seems to be the default, some like guidance take a quick single action, and some vary depending how you use the spell - magic missile is one action per missile, heal increases its range and area depending on how many actions you use, and so on. Others take minutes or longer. Here's magic missile and heal, as an example:

mmhe.jpg


The Core Rules

Pathfinder has a reputation for having a lot of rules. This is where a lot of work has been done. Rather than many subsystems, or weird ways of doing different things, Paizo has streamlined the game here; going back to my theme of reduced complexity, this is the obvious area you'll see the effects. Anybody familiar with d20-based games knows that a check or attack is a d20 plus modifiers to beat a target number, and this hasn't changed, though the actual numbers are slightly different (skills have a limited tier of modifiers rather than running from 0 to infinity).

Sadly, the many itty bitty modifiers are still in there (I love D&D's advantage/disadvantage system, though I recognise it's lack of granularity), but Paizo has done something interesting here: all checks, whether an attack, a save, or a skill check, have four degrees of success baked into the core. You can critically succeed (beat the target by 10+), succeed, fail, or fumble (miss the target by 10+). Many activities tell you exactly what happens in those situations. Let's look at a couple of examples:

Skill Check using Acrobatics to balance:

  • Critical Success You move up to your Speed.
  • Success You move up to your Speed, treating it as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement).
  • Failure You must remain stationary to keep your balance (wasting the action) or you fall. If you fall, your turn ends.
  • Critical Failure You fall and your turn ends.

Saving against the 5th level banishment spell:
  • Critical Success The target resists being banished and you are stunned 1.
  • Success The target resists being banished.
  • Failure The target is banished.
  • Critical Failure The target is banished and can’t return by any means to the plane it’s banished from for 1 week.
You'll see this all throughout the book, whatever the activity.

Combat
Combat has had quite an overhaul. It's faster now, and a little more tactical. I feel like characters are making meaningful choices more often, but from our playtests, I really did feel it ran quicker. Time will tell with big convoluted encounters and high-level stat blocks, of course, the latter of which Pathfinder is famous for.

Notably, there isn't a big section called "Combat". The section is called "Encounter Mode".

Combat begins with Initiative, as always. Initiative has been tweaked here; instead of rolling d20 plus a dex modifier, instead you are making a skill check. The fun part is that it's not always the same skill check -- often it will be Perception, but a sneaky rogue might be rolling Stealth, and sometimes you might even be rolling a Diplomacy check! Even if you don't play PF2E, use this in your d20 game, whatever it is.

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.26.39.png

Each character gets three actions, in what people are calling the new "three-action economy". This is a big change. Any given activity takes between 1-3 actions (most are one action, spells are often 2-3, and so on). You could move three times, move and attack twice, attack and then move then cast a 1-action spell, or whatever you like. Available actions are listed, and include things like Aid, Crawl, Ready, Seek, Step, Take Cover, and more. Something those who played the playtest will recall, and which is still in, is the choice to take an action to Raise A Shield in order to gain an AC bonus until your next turn; this initially sounds fiddly and extra complication where it's not needed... but it's not. It works. Everyone I played with reported that it made it feel like their shield was a thing, not just a static bonus on their character sheet, and that its use was a defensive choice (after all, you could use that action to attack or move). It's a little innovation which adds far more to the game than it has any right to do.

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.28.10.png

What happens when you die? Well, you can't go below 0 hit points. At that stage you gain the "Dying" condition, which has four levels. Each round you roll to see if you get better or worse, and if you get to Dying 4 you're dead. If you do recover, you gain the Wounded condition, which adds to future Dying values - so you can't keep bouncing up and down; it'll catch up with you. Other than that, you have a fairly standard set of conditions - blinded, fatigued, invisible, and so on.

Game Mastering
This 40-page section of the book is part GM advice, and part collection of miscellaneous rules. Here you'll find the rules for environments, hazards, natural disasters, and traps. You'll also see mechanical advice on appropriate rewards, setting difficulty classes, and using the different modes of play. And, of course, information on how to plan a campaign, create a welcoming environment (there's a sidebar which calls out X-Cards as a veil, and a section on dealing with objectionable content, with a description of what the game's assumed "baseline" is -- PCs don't torture, rape, own slaves, harm children, and so on). It's a useful chapter, although it feels a little eclectic; a grab-bag of stuff that doesn't quite fit elsewhere.

Treasure!
No d20 game is complete without a big list of magic items, and those familiar with PF1 or D&D will recognise many of these. Interestingly, this chapter is actually called "Crafting & Treasure"; 3.x and PF always had a crafting element to magic items, and PF2 is no exception. It's one thing that 5E studiously avoids.

So, in addition to pages and pages of wands, potions, amulets, and other assorted magical items (the categories have actually changed a bit) we have a big section on crafting items. You can make things out of special materials like darkwood or cold iron, and you make them magic by etching runes on them - runes like Invisibility, Dancing, Thundering, Vorpal, and so on. There's also a section on crafting snares (simple traps).

That Character Sheet
The character sheet is not a pretty sight. It looks like a tax form, and I feel like it alone could put people off this game. But it IS functional. The feats section pretty much tells you what you need to know about the game: you start by looking at it and saying "ten million feats!" but then you realise you're just picking a couple from a different short list each time, and the character sheet tells you when you do that. It's much more manageable than you might think at first. I can see why people might balk at this sheet, but I'm sure that fans will create dozens of pretty ones within hours of the game's release.

Screenshot 2019-07-31 at 14.41.57.png

Summary
This was always going to be a tricky launch. Somehow Paizo has to keep the fans of PF1E on board, many of whom are veterans of the D&D 3.x games, switched over when 4E was released and are naturally invested in that system by definition; but the game has reached peak bloat, the engine is 18 years old, and its cracks are really showing. Is that even possible?

For me personally, they pulled it off. They have reduced complexity AND increased depth. I know I keep saying that, but that's the thing I keep coming back to and it's the theme of this article.

Is it perfect? No. It's too keyword heavy for my tastes (requiring a lot of "what does 'deadly' mean?" at the table), and that requires time to gain mastery in. I feel that, if anything, would be the barrier to new gamers. Also, there's still lots of those little +1 or +2 modifiers or penalties which I find too finicky.

But it is good. It's a really good evolution of the d20 system. It's modern game design, with heritage. And it feels weighty in a "reliable" not a "cumbersome" way. Is it D&D 5E? No. Is it D&D 4E? No (although the monster stat blocks do remind me of that game in terms of layout). It is neither of those things. It's very much Pathfinder 2E. Of course, there are some general design principles which are found in most modern RPGs, some of which 5E and 4E created and others which they adopted from elsewhere, and you will see the edges of the Venn diagram overlap with Pathfinder 2E, but it would be a mistake to think it's not its own game.

So who's it for? If you're a new player, it may be a little intimidating as a first game, but the complexity is about on par with D&D 5E. If you're a 5E player, it has some extra depth where 5E leans more into the storytelling, and might scratch that itch for a little more mechanical heft and character customization. If you're a Pathfinder 1E player, it's more difficult -- it depends on how invested you are in that system, and I'm not yet clear on the level of backward compatibility.

Things I personally struggled with:
  • Lots of keywords. I'll be looking up the difference between deadly, dangerous, fatal, and mildly-ouchy weapons for a while (OK, I made two of those up); I'm sure the designers are thinking "What? But that's so simple!" and I am sure it is after a bit of play.
  • Lots of small +1 modifiers.
The people I think would like this game are those who, like me:
  • Like Pathfinder 1E but would like a more modern, streamlined play experience than the aging 3.x engine
  • Like D&D 5E but would like a bit more mechanical depth
  • Were intimidated by the sheer volume of Pathfinder 1E material and are looking for a jumping-on point
  • Want to customise their character more
I wasn't sure going in, but I think this is a better game than its predecessor and scratches an itch for mechanical depth. I'm going to run it.
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Matrix Sorcica

Explorer
I guess the "is shields worthwhile" subthread kind of died out...?

Maybe it's too early...
Maybe. But it will return, I think. IMO, that is the potential most problematic rule in PF2.
I like [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]`s suggestion to give the +2 ac flat and let raise shield give an additional +2. No idea if magic bonus should apply only if raised or not.
Guess time will tell.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
At this point, discussing houserules seems premature.

I just want to confirm the PF2 shield rules as written, what people think of them, and what the devs were thinking (how they envisioned people choosing to use shields).
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Giving shields a static benefit to AC would have a dramatic impact. It would generally make shield use the dominant melee strategy. So at first level the AC band of optimized characters is 16-18 depending on class and the only difference between a one handed weapon like the long sword and a 2 handed weapon like the great sword is the damage die which only averages out to a difference of 2 damage on a successful hit.

Raising your shield has plenty of impact. Against an orc warchief's (level 2 Creature) greatclub (+10 1d10+4) it shifts 65% chance to hit to 55% and shifts a 15% chance to critically hit to a 5% chance to critical. That's a pretty big deal when critical hits do double damage. On top of that it enables your shield block reaction for added damage reduction.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I don't think the shield rules are bad. I mostly just think we've used shields in a specific way for so long that this rule feels obtuse, even among a mass of other new rules changing how things work.

AD&D had some shield rules where you could only protect yourself from so many attacks a turn, and only from certain attacks, depending on the type of shield. That's the most similar thing I can think of to the Raise a Shield activity.
 

Jharet

Explorer
Very nice review. I've just never been interested in a watered down game made to appeal to people who'd rather be playing a board game than role-playing. Pathfinder 1E has every character combination, power and spell known to humankind and that's the way I like it. Nice and crunchy. We're living in the 21st Century where apps like the PFRPG app and tools like Hero Lab take a lot of the hard work out of looking up rules or finding abilities. Pathfinder is the top of the mountain and I'm not deluding myself into thinking ALL d20 games aren't complex to new players. PFRPGrognard. Here to stay.

Great review and overview of the new system. I wish Paizo success because they write the best adventures. Converting them back to PF1 shouldn't be too difficult with 6 Bestiaries already in hand.
 

Saelorn

Explorer
Raising your shield has plenty of impact. Against an orc warchief's (level 2 Creature) greatclub (+10 1d10+4) it shifts 65% chance to hit to 55% and shifts a 15% chance to critically hit to a 5% chance to critical.
So you're spending an action in advance, and even if they attack you after seeing that, there's an 80% chance that the action has no effect?
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
So you're spending an action in advance, and even if they attack you after seeing that, there's an 80% chance that the action has no effect?
It provides a +2 Circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn so it works against subsequent attacks as well or attacks from other assailants. It also enables the Shield Block reaction which with a Steel Shield will reduce the incoming damage of a single strike by 5, but might damage the shield. Generally speaking it is either competing with movement, Feint, Demoralize, or a third strike at a -10 penalty which brings a typical fighter's attack bonus down to -1 so it would hit the Orc Warrior on an 17 or better for 1d8+4 so around 2.125 average damage.

It is possible that the orc might opt to take his chances with a softer target. If there is one adjacent to it the fighter has made a tactical error. He should have done a better job isolating the ogre.

If the fighter has the orc isolated it needs to either spend an action to Step and move 5 feet or attempt to move away and trigger the Fighter's Attack of Opportunity reaction, a strike at his full attack bonus. If the fighter scores a critical hit that move action is wasted.

Probably the most dangerous action the ogre could take in this circumstance would be to trip the fighter who only has a Reflex DC of 16 and knock the fighter prone which pretty much negates the bonus from the shield. However this would eat into its Multiple Attack Penalty so would need to hit an AC of 18 at a +2 bonus and is still susceptible to the shield block reaction. Still the fighter's AC would be lower to other attacks as well and standing from prone could provoke the Orc Warrior's Attack of Opportunity, but this only has a 55% chance of being successful and a 5% chance the orc warrior could end up being the one prone.

The Raise A Shield action is not meant to be a sure thing, like most things in the game there is risk involved. The calculus changes based on the fiction and game resources used. There are absolutely scenarios where you should not raise your shield and possible to make the wrong call. That's part of the skill of playing the game.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
So you're spending an action in advance, and even if they attack you after seeing that, there's an 80% chance that the action has no effect?
Just a quick example.

Subsequent attacks suffer a -5 and -10 penalty respectively.

Assuming an enemy has a 50% chance to hit on the first attack then (ignoring crits for simplicity)

Let D = average damage taken
Normal damage is .5D + .25D +.05D = .8D

With +2 AC this becomes
.4D+.15D+.05D = .6D

In short the +2 AC bonus lowered such a creatures effective damage against you by 25%

If this was increased to +4 then

.3D+.05D+.05D = .4D.

...That's taking half damage.

Considering that AC can also lower the chance to be crit. I'm not ready to write shield off just yet. Especially when the third attack for most characters is going to contribute such a miniscule amount of damage anyways, due to the low chance to hit.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
So you're spending an action in advance, and even if they attack you after seeing that, there's an 80% chance that the action has no effect?
If you like to think of equipping a shield in D&D as "80% chance of no effect each time you're hit", then sure.

Talk about a glass half empty, though.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Just a note: while the default MAP indeed is -5 and -10, there are several ways you can reduce these penalties, sometimes quite significantly.
 

Saelorn

Explorer
If you like to think of equipping a shield in D&D as "80% chance of no effect each time you're hit", then sure.
I prefer to think of it as "reducing the total incoming damage by 50 to 66 percent"; although not every edition does justice to shields.

A bonus of +2 (or so) is worth far, far less when the enemy still has a greater than even chance of hitting you. That's the sort of overwhelming opposition that really begs for a non-combat solution. Nobody is going to walk into a fight where they expect to be stabbed.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I prefer to think of it as "reducing the total incoming damage by 50 to 66 percent"; although not every edition does justice to shields.

A bonus of +2 (or so) is worth far, far less when the enemy still has a greater than even chance of hitting you. That's the sort of overwhelming opposition that really begs for a non-combat solution. Nobody is going to walk into a fight where they expect to be stabbed.
Now you have lost me completely. In which games do shields reduce incoming damage by 66%?

And, more to the point, why do you bring that up in a discussion about D&D and Pathfinder?

(Honest question)

I thought we were discussing how Pathfinder 2 went from the standard D&D shield concept of +2 AC always-on bonus, to the current unique and somewhat involved system...?
 

Saelorn

Explorer
Now you have lost me completely. In which games do shields reduce incoming damage by 66%?

And, more to the point, why do you bring that up in a discussion about D&D and Pathfinder?
In D&D 2E and 3.x, including PF1, it was entirely possible that the +2 AC bonus from a shield would move you from being hit 15% of the time to being hit 5% of the time. (Second edition had the horrible rule where a 20 way always a crit, regardless of your AC, but the confirmation roll in 3.x mostly protected you from those as well.) Ergo, in PF1, the +2 bonus from a shield reduced incoming damage by two-thirds (on average, across all attacks); and in 2E, it reduced incoming damage by half (since you'd get hit a third of the time, but every hit was a crit).

Especially in PF1, choosing to follow the shield path - with all the feats and magical gear that goes with it - meant that you could stay outside of the operational d20 range of many level-relevant enemies. Your AC was actually useful, and the last 2 points of AC were worth more than a +2 in the middle of the attack range. If a shield took you from getting hit on an 11 to getting hit on a 9, then it wouldn't be worth giving up the use of a hand.

PF1 allows a shield to be useful, by giving you the infrastructure necessary for that +2 bonus to be useful. Likewise in 2E, since it predated CR charts and encounter expectations (and included all of the different AC-boosting magical items), your shield could stay in the useful range as long as you picked your enemies carefully.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Just a note: while the default MAP indeed is -5 and -10, there are several ways you can reduce these penalties, sometimes quite significantly.
Imo. Shield ac bonus effective damage reduction benefits look much more consistent in pf2 regardless of attack bonus. I suspect ther are very consistent t even with lower multiattack penalties.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Just a quick example.

Subsequent attacks suffer a -5 and -10 penalty respectively.

Assuming an enemy has a 50% chance to hit on the first attack then (ignoring crits for simplicity)

Let D = average damage taken
Normal damage is .5D + .25D +.05D = .8D

With +2 AC this becomes
.4D+.15D+.05D = .6D

In short the +2 AC bonus lowered such a creatures effective damage against you by 25%

If this was increased to +4 then

.3D+.05D+.05D = .4D.

...That's taking half damage.

Considering that AC can also lower the chance to be crit. I'm not ready to write shield off just yet. Especially when the third attack for most characters is going to contribute such a miniscule amount of damage anyways, due to the low chance to hit.
Rebounding off this. The bigger question is whether the damage you give up by not using a two handed weapon is worth having the option of 25% or so reduced damage taken.
 

Saelorn

Explorer
Rebounding off this. The bigger question is whether the damage you give up by not using a two handed weapon is worth having the option of 25% or so reduced damage taken.
If the option is balanced - if you could make a compelling argument to either spend that action, or to not - then it's not worth it. A static, always-on benefit, is worth more than gaining access to a balanced option, because a balanced option is no better than something you could already do.

That's why many of the feats in PF1 were traps. You could unlock the ability to do a new thing, but the new thing you were gaining access to was not strictly better than your existing options, and the opportunity cost was to give up flat bonuses that always applied. You'd be giving up power in exchange for no real benefit.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
If the option is balanced - if you could make a compelling argument to either spend that action, or to not - then it's not worth it.
The argument is that when you have a shield equipped the +2 AC is almost always better than making a third attack.

The question of balance arises when comparing sword and shield using the +2 AC bonus action to two handed weapon.


A static, always-on benefit, is worth more than gaining access to a balanced option, because a balanced option is no better than something you could already do.
Even then, there's always some efficiency in being able to choose which action to use at what time. Suppose there were 2 actions one did double damage to enemies that were an even number of feet tall. The other did double damage two enemies that were an odd number of feet tall. Then provided you face an equal number of evenly and oddly tall people - then you have increased your average damage by being given the choice of being able to choose an equally comparable action.

That's why many of the feats in PF1 were traps. You could unlock the ability to do a new thing, but the new thing you were gaining access to was not strictly better than your existing options, and the opportunity cost was to give up flat bonuses that always applied. You'd be giving up power in exchange for no real benefit.
Sure, but the question here isn't one about sword and shield making the attack or taking the AC. The AC action is a better use of your third action in nearly all situations than a third attack. Thus, the action granted by equipping a shield doesn't fall in the category of an action that provides an option but no general benefit.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
The point I'm ultimately making is that when comparing sword and shield to two hander then the comparison is:

How much more damage does a two hander making 3 attack do over a 1 hander and a shield making 2 attacks?

Depending on magical weapon damage dice and stat a two handed weapons damage per hit will be about 30% higher than a 1 handed weapons. Then you have to figure out how much additional damage that 3rd attack adds. I'd say maybe 10-15%. So total damage a two hander does over a typical one hander will be around 42.5% or so, compared to the advantage of the 1 handers 25% damage reduction.

I personally rate damage redutction as more important for a melee combatant than damage in actual play as I find that melee characters take quite a few more attacks than their ranged counterparts.

So while my initial impression was that two handers are better than the shield benefit, I think it's probably much closer than it first appears and that's without any consideration given to the shield block reaction.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top